Part 1 – Dinesh D’Souza Debates Peter Singer
http://www.tothesource.org 6yrs of free weekly emails.
tothesource has broadcasted over 300 weekly emails featuring informed opinion on current cultural issues. The articles address a variety of topics and the related moral and ethical issues they raise. Past tothesource articles are found on our archives page at http://www.tothesource.org/archives.php
Subscribe to tothesource free weekly emails at http://www.tothesource.org/subscribe.htm
Dinesh D’Souza debates Peter Singer at Biola University.
Duration : 0:9:20
[youtube Phgb67NAaHA]
Dinesh D’Souza is …
Dinesh D’Souza is probably smarter and more educated than all of us. What’s the point of insulting the oppostion? It’s an ad hominem.
fuck christianity …
christianity and all other organized religion
@ExaltedLeader LOL …
@ExaltedLeader LOL
They’ll smash, they’ll thrash their brains!
They’ll most likely get nowhere!
Carsalesman v. Philosopher!
Tonight @7:30east 8:30c
Children’s get in FREE! FREE! FREE!
My favorite part …
My favorite part about this debate is what is conveyed without a single word: Dinesh brought a cheap blue used car salesman suit, Singer brought a nice golf shirt and some khakis. Dinesh brought a ratty old coil-bound notebook, Singer brought his laptop. Dinesh showed-up with that same ridiculous moustache that become part of his image, Singer showed-up well kept and groomed.
These two men come from two very different universes of professionalism.
Sounds like …
Sounds like sehnsuch is going into this video with an open mind…
Sigh.
I’ve got the …
Sigh.
I’ve got the video paused a second in. I’m really not sure I can bring myself to watch this dishonest, cowardly snake named Dinesh D’Souza intentionally misrepresent and all over the life’s work of yet another fearlessly original thinker for 90 minutes.
How this repellent, unoriginal f*ckwad keeps managing to book debates with world-class intellectuals is and will probably forever remain a mystery to me.
All right, here goes nothing!
@TrophyBass12– Let …
@TrophyBass12– Let me start by stating that philosophy itself says that there is more to reason than reason alone. Your scientific facts may or may not be valid, either way, it is irrelevant. You say that love, hate etc can be measured by brain function, the question becomes what triggers this brain function? There is a tendency to never get to the ultimate cause. Your argument is similar to those who say human beings come from our parents and so on. Infinite relapse is not an answer
hmmm how is peter …
hmmm how is peter singer an idiot?
1. Pushing for abortion 23 days after birth
2. Animal liberation
This is what happens when people rely on reason alone. Reason tells us that it is ok to kill an unborn child for the better of society, but, our vital principles tell us otherwise
@jlucks123 peter …
@jlucks123 peter singer an idiot? how so?
@ …
@thewordbecameflesh1– As for scientists being unable to look at your neurons, and tell you what you are thinking, I would say that you need to look up PET scans on wikipedia. Examining every single neuron at one time is something so difficult that it is unlikely we will ever be able to do it, but even with our incredibly limited technology we CAN see the general topic someone is thinking about (For example, music, speaking, reasoning, feeling anger, love, etc.) even if we can’t read their minds
@ …
@ thewordbecameflesh1– There are many assertions in your post, but little valid arguements. There are also many contradictions. For example, if our body and our spirit are one, how can you say that the spirit is a part that no one can “get to”. If you would agree that bodily damage turned Phineas Gage into a malicious, cruel, human being, then certainly his “spirit”, if he had such a thing, would have been impacted? If cruel and malicious actions are based in the brain, we are all innocent.
Our body and …
Our body and spirits are combined in our current state, so of course his personality changed with brain damage. There’s a part of you that nobody can kill or get to. Scientists can’t look at my neurons in my brain and tell me what I’m thinking, and they will never be able to. Your spirit is what makes choices, not your body. If materialism is true, then how many neurons does it take to love? How many action potentials does it take for me take make the decision to pray? Materialism doesn’t work
@jlucks123
…
@jlucks123
D’souza has not successfully presented his argument; Again, he has simply resorted to attacking and distorting Singer’s argument. D’Souza claims are baseless like the claims you made against Singer, calling him a kook and idiot.. The lack of evidence is glaring, and Singer’s claim stands strong in spite of the gratuitous and vitriolic attacks by D’Souza and you.
The brain is a …
The brain is a material thing. Reason, memory, worry, love, hate– all the things you mentioned serve a biological function and have evolved. Consciousness arises from neurons and chemicals in the brain. If you don’t believe me, read about Phineas Gage. He miraculously survived a pole going through his brain, but it completely morphed his personality.
wrong. first of all …
wrong. first of all, “attacking…singer’s argment (sic)” is exactly what a debate is, spinoza. secondly, there is no distortion here, these are singer’s (hairbrained and malicious) arguments. the man is a kook and an idiot, not to mention a poor writer.
@TrophyBass12 – how …
@TrophyBass12 – how do materialists explain the animation of life, by what material means do you or I reason, remember, worry about the future, love or hate?
Is this guy nuts? …
Is this guy nuts? Even a person with average intelligence can see that what he is saying is complete fabrication.
Not a believer at …
Not a believer at all. But Singer supports Bestrality, eugenics, and comapring Kentucky Fried Chicken to the Holocaust. The man is a lunatic.
You forgot distort …
You forgot distort and lie.
“Compassion is a …
“Compassion is a value that came into the world because of Christianity.” ?? Whoa, nellie. I smell B.S.
Agreed. Though I …
Agreed. Though I suppose that it is relevant in the sense that Singer’s views are based on the argument that God does not exist. But whether or not the moral implications of the nonexistence of God are scary or not has no effect on whether or not there is a god.
I phrased my …
I phrased my statement poorly, or at least failed to clarify. I’m only disturbed by the fact that Dinesh is bringing some of Singer’s other views into the conversation, views that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, brought into the discussion without context, and used primarily to set the audience against singer. It doesn’t matter to me what Singer thinks on those issues during a debate of God’s existence, and the fact that Dinesh used a large portion of his opener stating them is wrong.
I would agree with …
I would agree with D’Souza in his belief that Singer has simply followed the natural implications of atheism. In fact, I don’t think Singer has followed them enough. Singer still believes in morality; how can we have objective morals if there is nothing beyond the material world? Otherwise our assumption that morality exists is based on the premise that since we feel it, it must exist, when in reality, evolution would be purely responsible for our consciences.
He is objectively …
He is objectively stating Singer’s beliefs. If this is an attack, what does that say of Singer’s beliefs?
I’m not saying that his beliefs on morality (abortion, for example) are incorrect. I’m simply saying that you are accidentally revealing your feelings that his beliefs are cruel.
Two minutes and …
Two minutes and thirty seconds in, Dinesh has opted for attacking Singer personally. Before making any points regarding the subject whatsoever.